Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 11 January 2018 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EB7127909; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:59:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ly0yDM6Ltzjy; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D05C1204DA; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.105] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w0BExqBV080577 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:59:53 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.105]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <53D62EB0-1D14-4AA5-BF6E-66D4821B9247@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6CC41BD8-7D21-474A-AEA1-FDA1FEE83137"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:59:51 -0600
In-Reply-To: <1515681807.4062594.1231937816.37C0052C@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
References: <151555626454.21425.808189332359360773.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <648EF42B-8223-4C66-BCC1-EDE545A1F96A@vigilsec.com> <E0852EC8-9776-4EAC-B9D4-3CBC0FF9CDCC@nostrum.com> <1515681807.4062594.1231937816.37C0052C@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/nKJocRPWsR_wtJ0DgwI_lHV0HYM>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:00:00 -0000


> On Jan 11, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> I just reread section 4 and 6 of draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15. They define extra requirements which are incorporated by reference into draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-04. So this makes me think that draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15 should also say "Updates: 5280". I think this would be the easiest change.

I agree that if there are updates in *-addresses that are not in *-updates that *-addresses should also update 5280.
> 
> Either way, I don't think readers of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-04 will be confused (whether they find it through Updates: 5280 header or directly), because draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15 is a normative reference.

I could see an argument that the updates tag in *-updates covers everything, but I think that connection is tenuous that people will likely miss it.

> 
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> This should be easy to resolve, after which I plan to ballot "yes":
>>>> 
>>>> It seems like this needs to update at least RFC 5280. Section 4 creates what I
>>>> assume to be a new requirement for all email address domains in X.509
>>>> certificates to conform to IDNA2008. That seems like a reasonable requirement,
>>>> but if we want people reading 5280 to know about that requirement, we need the
>>>> "updates" relationship.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, section explicitly says it updates a section of 5280.
>>> 
>>> Please see draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update, which is already in the RFC Editor's queue waiting for this document to catch up.
>> 
>> I assume that your point is that both of these updates are already in
>> draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update?
>> 
>> If so, then perhaps the language in section 1, 4, and 6 should be
>> updated to indicate that draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update makes
>> those updates, rather than this document?